There is absolutely a relationship between C &R regs and the size of trout in the stream. Look at all of the evidence that PFBC has on Brown trout streams, Saucon, Cedar Run Slate Run and other all show a decline in large trout, ie, trout over 14 inches. I'm not sure why this is, it may be environmental factors. It may be something like survivibility of larger fish to being caught.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 21:02

_________________
The object of a resource is to use and reuse a resource, not to use it up, have we learned nothing in over 125 years of stocking?

Chaz, with respect to my eperiences on some brown trout limestoners with special regs, that has been my unofficial electrofishing observation as well. Biomass may shoot way up under special regs, but the increase is largely generated by the abundance of 8.5-10.5 inchers. Out of caution I am not going to claim that I have noticed this in all cases, but it seems to be a common response and one, I might add, that does not thrill me since fish in this length range are often common anyway (without special regs).

To me its pretty obvious why it is. You are eliminating harvest. Due to the type of angler that generally fishes special reg sections, you're also reducing accidental mortality. This equals more fish. More fish = less food per fish = more small and average ones and less monsters.

Actually I see that as the more "natural" situation, a carrying capacity situation. I see it as general regulations artificially increase the size and decrease populations, and more restrictive regulations allow it to return to the natural state. The real question is which way we'd rather have it, size or numbers?Personally I like numbers more than size, but thats just me.

Thats all very believable on brown trout streams, and the more famous brook trout streams like Big Spring and BFC. But is it true on more typical brook trout streams? I don't know. My guess would be no, because they don't see enough pressure or harvest under general regs to have the size increase/population decrease effect, so they're essentially always in the "carrying capacity" mode. But if you had a highly pressured stream it probably would hold true. Finding a way to encourage pressure and harvest might actually be beneficial to the size in many cases, kind of like reverse special regs. But as I said, I'm for numbers over size. Thats just my thoughts, Mike if there's any data out there I'd find it interesting.

I believe that size limit on brookies should be lowered as to encourage more habitat resistant brown trout to be able to fill our waterways and not have to compete for the limited biomass in the headwaters.

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:now that is the funniest thing you posted yet.

No, that's not funny, that's just pathetic! And typical of something that he would say.

WT, I'd think by now you'd figured out that this dude is trying to get a reaction out of us at all costs. He's a knuckle draggin' troll that thinks he's being witty, and to some extent he is, since people keep reacting. Don't feed the troll!!!